"What is more, science is extraordinarily effective precisely because it sets aside questions of meaning, value and purpose in order to focus on causal processes."
Yes, science does not judge—it attempts to explain the material world.
Great article. Once one sheds crude scientism it really opens up a lot of doors. You should explore some philosophy of mind if you haven’t already I think you’d enjoy it. I did and once I did it made me realize not only is scientism false, but the mind can’t be purely “material” (at least in the Cartesian sense of the term) because of the problem of intentionality and rationality and the scholastic tradition was right about that from the start. None of that is found in a microscope studying neurons but rigorous argumentation.
Harari's impressive idea generator always yields great material to test one's bullshit detector.
Yes, if one uses a sufficiently reductionist mental model, there is no meaning! There is no concept of 'meaning' in physics. It's not in the vocabulary of that model! It's the same kind of confusion as Sam Harris triumphantly not finding 'free will' in physics.
But there comfortably exists meaning on higher levels of abstraction. We use it every day – psychology, linguistics, ...
In that introductory quote of his, he first assumes a reductionist model and then tries to bait us into accepting that proves non-existence of meaning on the level of human psychology. Also, how would Harari answer the question: Does what you just said convey any meaning?
In the past I would have agreed with Yuval. But I invite anyone that thinks life is meaningless to have a daughter. Seeing her growing up and smiling has answered what dozens of philosophy books haven’t.
A Necessary Being, by definition, cannot fail, cannot lack knowledge, cannot change, because change presupposes a prior state and a posterior state—i.e., contingency. Once God is potty-trained, is he still metaphysically ultimate?
Can a God who becomes human in time, learns, suffers, dies serve as the metaphysical ground of reality? If one still wants a bridge to Christianity, it must either:
1. Deny absolute necessity and accept a contingent, finite God who participates in history, or
2. Interpret the Incarnation symbolically or theatrically, and avoid literal metaphysical dependence.
The question for me is is not whether Christianity is meaningful, but whether meaning alone suffices where other religions preserve metaphysical ultimacy and meaning, and whether we are ready to face where religious revival may lead us.
the nihilism masquerading as science that denies the existence of meaning of humans, sentient beings and overall systems, contradicts a basic attribute of science which is to explore, discover and learn as opposed to assuming and not investigating, it reflects simpleton lack of information about important domains like neuroscience and psychology, at an individual level often supports the conceit of excess education and denial of the debt owed to parents that socialized them to focus and stable emotions (so they are comfortable in conceit), and at a political level is acquired by trends that oppose and hamper the operation of ethic systems. atheism and agnosticism are the pure lifestyle of liberal democratic neutrality toward ethics, persons who place so little value in ethics and meaning that they can't be bothered to study them or even take a position. atheism is against some things but has no specific beliefs itself, agnosticism isnt even against anything.
actual science is constantly revealing more about meaning. emotion has different operation than reasoning but both are part of neurologic system. the pattern of the journey of humans has evoked materialist conclusions -- that it results from systems described by physics and biologic drive -- extant material indicates at least since the Carvaka in 500BC, through the Atomists, al Dahriyya, Hobbes, Hume up to Patricia Churchland.
a simple narrow conclusion of a specific meaning being proved by science may be exaggeration and inaccurate. but the journey of humans, while plurally conceived by different ethic systems, is sacred to a materialist. This sanctity is no larger or smaller than a religious description of human journey. this is important as global liberalism in the western formation disintegrates and begats nihilist tangents like victim-safety civil religion contrary to fundamental elements of human journey such as effort, challenge, competition and procreation. religions are mostly doing fine but their reach is smaller now and needs supplement with materialist ethics, that can supplant passive and divisive beliefs like atheism and agnosticism, and equip families and persons for the arriving higher education automated society.
Yuval Noah Harari is an obnoxious pseudointellectual and Sapiens is one of the worst books on Human Evolution & History ever written
Bo, excellent article.
"What is more, science is extraordinarily effective precisely because it sets aside questions of meaning, value and purpose in order to focus on causal processes."
Yes, science does not judge—it attempts to explain the material world.
Great article. Once one sheds crude scientism it really opens up a lot of doors. You should explore some philosophy of mind if you haven’t already I think you’d enjoy it. I did and once I did it made me realize not only is scientism false, but the mind can’t be purely “material” (at least in the Cartesian sense of the term) because of the problem of intentionality and rationality and the scholastic tradition was right about that from the start. None of that is found in a microscope studying neurons but rigorous argumentation.
Then from a purely scientific viewpoint, Harari had no need to write that sentence.
Harari's impressive idea generator always yields great material to test one's bullshit detector.
Yes, if one uses a sufficiently reductionist mental model, there is no meaning! There is no concept of 'meaning' in physics. It's not in the vocabulary of that model! It's the same kind of confusion as Sam Harris triumphantly not finding 'free will' in physics.
But there comfortably exists meaning on higher levels of abstraction. We use it every day – psychology, linguistics, ...
In that introductory quote of his, he first assumes a reductionist model and then tries to bait us into accepting that proves non-existence of meaning on the level of human psychology. Also, how would Harari answer the question: Does what you just said convey any meaning?
Or as Luhmann might say, meaning is simply there, kind of like ether, producing misunderstanding; human, all too human. Nice piece.
https://open.substack.com/pub/publisherpt/p/the-meaning-of-life-true-and-false?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
In the past I would have agreed with Yuval. But I invite anyone that thinks life is meaningless to have a daughter. Seeing her growing up and smiling has answered what dozens of philosophy books haven’t.
A Necessary Being, by definition, cannot fail, cannot lack knowledge, cannot change, because change presupposes a prior state and a posterior state—i.e., contingency. Once God is potty-trained, is he still metaphysically ultimate?
Can a God who becomes human in time, learns, suffers, dies serve as the metaphysical ground of reality? If one still wants a bridge to Christianity, it must either:
1. Deny absolute necessity and accept a contingent, finite God who participates in history, or
2. Interpret the Incarnation symbolically or theatrically, and avoid literal metaphysical dependence.
The question for me is is not whether Christianity is meaningful, but whether meaning alone suffices where other religions preserve metaphysical ultimacy and meaning, and whether we are ready to face where religious revival may lead us.
Meaning rests in discovering and understanding the universe.
the nihilism masquerading as science that denies the existence of meaning of humans, sentient beings and overall systems, contradicts a basic attribute of science which is to explore, discover and learn as opposed to assuming and not investigating, it reflects simpleton lack of information about important domains like neuroscience and psychology, at an individual level often supports the conceit of excess education and denial of the debt owed to parents that socialized them to focus and stable emotions (so they are comfortable in conceit), and at a political level is acquired by trends that oppose and hamper the operation of ethic systems. atheism and agnosticism are the pure lifestyle of liberal democratic neutrality toward ethics, persons who place so little value in ethics and meaning that they can't be bothered to study them or even take a position. atheism is against some things but has no specific beliefs itself, agnosticism isnt even against anything.
actual science is constantly revealing more about meaning. emotion has different operation than reasoning but both are part of neurologic system. the pattern of the journey of humans has evoked materialist conclusions -- that it results from systems described by physics and biologic drive -- extant material indicates at least since the Carvaka in 500BC, through the Atomists, al Dahriyya, Hobbes, Hume up to Patricia Churchland.
a simple narrow conclusion of a specific meaning being proved by science may be exaggeration and inaccurate. but the journey of humans, while plurally conceived by different ethic systems, is sacred to a materialist. This sanctity is no larger or smaller than a religious description of human journey. this is important as global liberalism in the western formation disintegrates and begats nihilist tangents like victim-safety civil religion contrary to fundamental elements of human journey such as effort, challenge, competition and procreation. religions are mostly doing fine but their reach is smaller now and needs supplement with materialist ethics, that can supplant passive and divisive beliefs like atheism and agnosticism, and equip families and persons for the arriving higher education automated society.
It also does not mean that the world is meaningful. An exercise in unicorn breeding.